IBM frees 500 patents [LWN.net]

IBM frees 500 patents

Posted Jan 11, 2005 15:37 UTC (Tue) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159)
Parent article: IBM frees 500 patents

I can see two ways of interpreting the patent grant:

While the patents can be used in programs with any approved open source license, it adds a restriction that any programs deriving from the software (provided that the derivative work also uses the patent). So a BSD licensed program using one of these patents wouldn't strictly be BSD licensed.
If libraries count as "open source software", then a proprietary software vendor could implement a patented idea and release it as a BSD licensed library, then link that library to their program and still be protected by the grant. This would effectively grant use of the patents for anything.

The language in the document talks of "Open Source Software" being "computer programs", which is why I am unsure if a library would be covered outside of the context of the application it is linked to.

(Log in to post comments)

IBM frees 500 patents

Posted Jan 11, 2005 15:46 UTC (Tue) by justme (guest, #19967) [Link]

I don't think your interpretation #2 would be a problem, since somewhere along the way, that library's source would be available.

I am assuming, of course, that the intent here is that the patents can be used for anything, as long as the implementation source code is made available. If the intent were instead to only make these patents available for use in free software, I think IBM would have gone the GPL route.

IBM frees 500 patents

Posted Jan 12, 2005 7:58 UTC (Wed) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

Actually, option #2 wouldn't work.

IBM's patent licence relies on *the* *program* being Open Source (as defined, pretty accurately, by IBM).

And remember, it is the *user* who is liable for any patent violation. So any software company that tried to pull that stunt would simply drop its customers right into IBM's firing line. Just like MS dropped its SQL-Server customers right into Timeline's sights...

Cheers,
Wol

IBM frees 500 patents

Posted Jan 11, 2005 19:49 UTC (Tue) by LogicG8 (guest, #11076) [Link]

>So a BSD licensed program using one of these patents wouldn't strictly be BSD licensed.
It does kind of "ruin" the BSD license.

>This would effectively grant use of the patents for anything.
This isn't true because closing the source would be in conflict
with the terms of the patent license.

A company could write a library that uses a software
patent covered by this amnesty and release the library
under the BSD license thus complying with the terms of
the patent license. They can write a closed source
program that uses the library because the library
provides a "well defined interface" and so the program
would be a non-derivative work. The open source
library must be the entity which implements the
patent though.

The part that spoils the BSD license is if the original
company or another company tried to close the library source
they could no longer distribute the library because they
would be in violation of the patent license (not the
copyright license).

This takes away a lot of the "freedom" of the BSD license
and makes it a lot more viral like the GPL license.

IBM frees 500 patents

Posted Jan 12, 2005 3:09 UTC (Wed) by kmself (subscriber, #11565) [Link]

I t does kind of "ruin" the BSD license.

Bollox.

BSD never granted patent rights. If anything, this strengthens BSD. Code released under BSD/MIT/Apache licenses are now granted a patent license. Porprietized derivations must, as with any other proprietary software, arrange for licensing terms with IBM (or take their lumps).

If anything, it provides a stronger incentive to not free-ride on BSD terms. Not that BSDers have a problem with this (it's what their license grants, and what most of them explicitly want to provide). But it should make the software itself somewhat more tenable. I see a plus.

IBM frees 500 patents

Posted Jan 11, 2005 21:38 UTC (Tue) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]

Actions may be separately restricted for multiple reasons. If you are running a BSD-licensed program using rented computer time, your use of the program is restricted both by the license on the program itself and the license to use the computer. This doesn't mean that the program isn't BSD licensed; your license under copyright law to use the program is still the BSD license. But that doesn't mean that your actions aren't restricted by other factors, such as copyright licenses on the content you are acting on with the program, patent grant restrictions, trademark law, and criminal law. You could be scamming people by running a Mozilla-branded version of hotbabe with modified images with alpha blending tunnelled over ssh, and the fact that you're obeying the BSD license on OpenSSH doesn't help your case any.

The effect of this grant is that one of the possible issues beyond copyright you might have in interacting with software isn't a problem with respect to this set of IBM patents provided the software is open source (i.e. the copyright is licensed (to somebody? to you? to IBM? have to check on this) under an open-source license).

IBM frees 500 patents

Posted Jan 12, 2005 1:55 UTC (Wed) by xtifr (subscriber, #143) [Link]

> So a BSD licensed program using one of these patents wouldn't strictly be BSD licensed.

Sure it would, just as much as it was before! The BSD license is a copyright license and has nothing to do with patents. The big difference is that now, the patented process embedded in BSD-licensed code can legally be used for *some* purposes, whereas before it would have been illegal for any purposes (despite the perfectly valid BSD-style copyright license on the code itself).